A single application for multiple permits or different routes is not maintainable or contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act. The fee prescribed under Rule 145 of the Rules is for a single application for a single permit. The time schedule for operating stage carriages must be fixed with reference to the interests of the general public and cannot be treated as confined to the competing interests of the permit holders.

Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - PERMIT - SINGLE APPLICATION FOR MULTIPLE ROUTES - NOT PERMISSIBLE - FEE PRESCRIBED UNDER RULE 145 OF THE RULES - FEE FOR A SINGLE APPLICATION FOR A SINGLE PERMIT - TIME SCHEDULE - TO BE FIXED CONSIDERING INTERESTS OF GENERAL PUBLIC - NOT CONFINED TO COMPETING INTERESTS OF PERMIT HOLDERS.
Fact of the Case:

Prem Narain applied for a permit to ply his stage carriage on two routes: Ashoknagar to Kadwaya via Saraskhedi, Issagarh, Gahora, and Manethi, and Ashoknagar to Isagarh via Saraskhedi. The Regional Transport Authority granted a single permit for both routes. The State Appellate Tribunal set aside the order, holding that a single permit for routes with more than two terminals could not be granted. Prem Narain challenged this order in the High Court.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that a single application for multiple permits or different routes is not maintainable or contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act. The fee prescribed under Rule 145 of the Rules is for a single application for a single permit. The time schedule for operating stage carriages must be fixed with reference to the interests of the general public and cannot be treated as confined to the competing interests of the permit holders.
Issues: 1. Whether a single application for multiple permits or different routes is maintainable under the Motor Vehicles Act? 2. Whether the fee prescribed under Rule 145 of the Rules is for a single application for a single permit? 3. How should the time schedule for operating stage carriages be fixed?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A single application for multiple permits or different routes is not maintainable or contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act. The expression 'an application' in Section 70 of the Act includes the expression 'applications,' and the expression 'the permit' includes 'permits.' 2. The fee prescribed under Rule 145 of the Rules is for a single application for a single permit. The provisions of the Rule, by virtue of Section 70(1)(f) of the Act, have to be regarded as a condition precedent for the grant of the permit. 3. The time schedule for operating stage carriages must be fixed with reference to the interests of the general public and cannot be treated as confined to the competing interests of the permit holders. The timings are given to facilitate the travelers and not for favoring one operator at the expense of the other.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge, quashed the order passed by the revising authority, and modified the order of the Regional Transport Authority. The matter was sent back to the Regional Transport Authority with a direction to pass a fresh order in regard to the grant of permit to the respondent No. 1 confined to a single route, refixing the time schedule in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in the judgment.

S. P. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) FEELING aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge whereunder allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1, the order passed by the State Appellate Tribunal seeking setting aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority granting the stage carriage permit to the said respondent has been quashed, the objector/respondents in the writ petition have now come up in Letters Patent Appeal seeking redress praying for the setting aside of the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge.

( 2 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel representing the contesting respondent, and have carefully perused the record.

( 3 ) THE facts in brief, shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this appeal lie in a narrow compass. The respondent No. 1 had moved an application praying for the grant of a permit on 28-10-1996 for service of a stage carriage of two return trips daily on the route Ashoknagar to Kadwaya via Saraskhedi, Issagarh, Gahora and Manethi and for a single return trip daily between Ashoknagar to Isagarh via Saraskhedi.

( 4 ) THE Regional Transport Authority, Gwalior vide its order dated 27-8-1997, granted a single permit for plying the stage carriage authorising two return trips daily between Ashoknagar and Kadwaya and a single return trip daily between Ashoknagar and Isagarh, as prayed for.

( 5 ) FEELING aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present appellants challenged the same in revision before the Madhya Pradesh State Appellate Tribunal. The State Appellate Tribunal vide its judgment and order dated 3-10-1997, allowed the revision and set aside the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority granting permit to the respondent No. 1.

( 6 ) BEFORE the revising authority it had been urged by the present appellants that a single permit for routes having more than two terminals could not be granted. It had further been urged that the contesting respondent was required to pay Rs. 500/- for the grant of permit according to Rule 145 of the Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994, and as Prem Narain, the said respondent had paid only a sum of Rs. 500/- his application for the grant of permit to ply his stage carriage on a route with more than two terminals signifying two different routes could not be entertained. The appellants had also challenged the time schedule fixed by the Regional Transport Authority on the ground that it was wholly unjust.

( 7 ) THE revising authority came to the conclusion that in his application for the grant of a permit, Prem Narain, the contesting respondent had in fact sought for permit to ply his stage carriage between the routes having more than two terminals and consequently, the permit issued by the Regional Transport Authority could not be held to be in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 2 (38) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, holding that a single permit for a route having more than two terminals could not be granted.

( 8 ) THE objection in regard to the payment of an additional sum of Rs. 500/- in order to comply with the requirements contained in Rule 145 of the Rules referred to hereinabove, was however, rejected.

( 9 ) SO far as the objection in regard to the time schedule was concerned, although the State Appellate Tribunal had expressed the opinion that it appeared to be unjust but it did not go into merits of this controversy as the application for permit filed by the contesting respondent was found to be not entertainable and the revision was allowed on that short ground.

( 10 ) THE order passed by the revising authority was challenged by Prem Narain, the contesting respondent in the writ petition which has given rise to the present Letters Patent Appeal.

( 11 ) A learned single Judge of this Court vide the impugned order dated 11-3-1998 (reported in AIR 1998 Madh Pra 229), allowed the writ petition and quashed the order passed by the revising au

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1998 Supreme(MP) 498

High Court Of Madhya PradeshFAKHRUDDINVIVEK DWIVEDI - AppellantVersusPREM NARAIN - RespondentsL. P. A. 73 Of 1998Decided On : 07/13/1998

Cases Referred (1)

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
FAKHRUDDIN
VIVEK DWIVEDI - Appellant
Versus
PREM NARAIN - Respondents
L. P. A. 73 Of 1998
Decided On : 07/13/1998